Yea...funny thing is that he was actually born into slavery, bought his freedom, became a barber, freed his family, and then bought a shitload of slaves.......one of the irony's of history....

Here you go my friend. Here is another irony. A black Slave Holder who is ultimately killed by a slave that was helped to escape by a White Man.

Among these was William Johnson, a slave turned free man of color in Natchez, Mississippi. Granted his freedom in 1830, Johnson set up business in Natchez as a barber and moneylender until he purchased a nearby farm. At the time of his death in 1851 he owned fifteen slaves, with an eye to turning a profit. And yet, his diary indicates, some of them evoked in him a turbulent mixture of emotions. “To day has been to me a very Sad Day,” he wrote on December 31, 1843. “Many tears were in my Eyes to day On acct. of my Selling poor Steven. I went under the hill this Evening to See him of[f] but the Boat did not Cross over again and Steven got drunk in a few minutes and 1 took him Home & made him Sleep in the garret and Kept him Safe.” Johnson, who had bought Steven in 1832 for $455, had just sold him for $600. The next day the former slave still grappled with his conscience: “I felt hurt but Liquor is the Cause of his troubles; I would not have parted with Him if he had Only have Let Liquor alone but he Cannot do it I believe.”

As a black slaveholder Johnson was caught in a tangle of ironies. His diaries reveal the rancor he felt toward the arrogant white slaveowners of his area, though he was cautious to keep his resentment under wraps. While he expressed considerable compassion for his slaves, the only one who ever escaped from him was helped to freedom by a man he called “a white scoundrel.” Johnson was murdered in 1851, apparently by a mulatto whose race the courts had difficulty ascertaining.

If American History were taught as it should be, decades and decades ago, I believe there would be less racial tension and animosity between races.

Think about it, if Blacks learned that they too, owned Plantations and slaves as well as held positions in Society, the victim mentality would not be permissible nor would the stereotypical memes that they assume exist.

It has been a disservice to the Black Race that this has occurred. Even Booker T. Washington had no idea that Blacks were Plantation owners and slave holders.

TRUTH.

And the primary function of such black "heroes" as Jackson, Sharpton, etc.. has been to exacerbate tension between the races. If we "all got along" there would be a lot of worthless rabble-rousers going broke.

Here you go my friend. Here is another irony. A black Slave Holder who is ultimately killed by a slave that was helped to escape by a White Man.

Among these was William Johnson, a slave turned free man of color in Natchez, Mississippi. Granted his freedom in 1830, Johnson set up business in Natchez as a barber and moneylender until he purchased a nearby farm. At the time of his death in 1851 he owned fifteen slaves, with an eye to turning a profit. And yet, his diary indicates, some of them evoked in him a turbulent mixture of emotions. “To day has been to me a very Sad Day,” he wrote on December 31, 1843. “Many tears were in my Eyes to day On acct. of my Selling poor Steven. I went under the hill this Evening to See him of[f] but the Boat did not Cross over again and Steven got drunk in a few minutes and 1 took him Home & made him Sleep in the garret and Kept him Safe.” Johnson, who had bought Steven in 1832 for $455, had just sold him for $600. The next day the former slave still grappled with his conscience: “I felt hurt but Liquor is the Cause of his troubles; I would not have parted with Him if he had Only have Let Liquor alone but he Cannot do it I believe.”

As a black slaveholder Johnson was caught in a tangle of ironies. His diaries reveal the rancor he felt toward the arrogant white slaveowners of his area, though he was cautious to keep his resentment under wraps. While he expressed considerable compassion for his slaves, the only one who ever escaped from him was helped to freedom by a man he called “a white scoundrel.” Johnson was murdered in 1851, apparently by a mulatto whose race the courts had difficulty ascertaining.

I read about that in an old book in the library regarding Southern History. If history was not so twisted to where one side was demonized, then we would have more equality.

Also, slavery would have ended without the Civil War as it had ended every where else had Lincoln not decided to send to send an army to invade the South. It really was a War of Northern Aggression. Slavery would have ended very soon, (especially with advances in Agriculture and the Industrial Age) much more cleanly and without a war.

You couldn`t be further from the truth. Blacks had a much better life in the South than the North, pre civil war. There were many black men who attained great wealth and even had slaves of their own. The largest slave owner in Craven County, North Carolina was a black man, John Carruthers Stanly and was one of the largest in the state.

Actually he did have many white slaves.....many of them he trained to be a barber to work at his shops as an apprrenticeship. Others kept maintenence on his rental properties...they were given room, board, and a stipend to go into town on the weekend.

Think about it....the United States at the time was a harsh enviroment to live in. Lots of people became indentured servants rather than struggle to survive

Also, slavery would have ended without the Civil War as it had ended every where else had Lincoln not decided to send to send an army to invade the South. It really was a War of Northern Aggression. Slavery would have ended very soon, (especially with advances in Agriculture and the Industrial Age) much more cleanly and without a war.

doesnt change the fact that the southern states seceeded to protect the institution of slavery, and therefore the confederate flag represents nothing more than states willing to fight to protect slavery.

Actually he did have many white slaves.....many of them he trained to be a barber to work at his shops as an apprrenticeship. Others kept maintenence on his rental properties...they were given room, board, and a stipend to go into town on the weekend.

Think about it....the United States at the time was a harsh enviroment to live in. Lots of people became indentured servants rather than struggle to survive

given a stipend to me is not qualification to be a slave. One is in effect, a "live in employee".

Also, Lincoln himself knew invading the South was Unconstitutional and not founded in any law whatsoever. The "Legal" Justification he used to raise troops and invade was simply the Oath of Office he took when he was sworn in, the same Barack Obama took a few weeks ago.

Lincoln also suspended Habeas Corpus in the ENTIRE state of Maryland. Many journalists were imprisoned during that time. Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Roger Taney, overturned the order as being Unconstitutional and Lincoln just ignored the ruling completely.

given a stipend to me is not qualification to be a slave. One is in effect, a "live in employee".

They weren't allowed to leave the area otherwise they would be hunted down by a slave catcher....no different than Andrew Johnson. They signed the contacts to be slaves so that they would be taken care of and/or learn a particular skill

And a stipend isn't a paycheck...it was basically an allowance. They usually got about 25 cents to buy some beer and whisky and shoot a few games of pool....nothing to write home about

They weren't allowed to leave the area otherwise they would be hunted down by a slave catcher....no different than Andrew Johnson. They signed the contacts to be slaves so that they would be taken care of and/or learn a particular skill

And a stipend isn't a paycheck...it was basically an allowance. They usually got about 25 cents to buy some beer and whisky and shoot a few games of pool....nothing to write home about

entering into a contract to voluntarily be an indentured servant is not the same thing as being a slave

doesnt change the fact that the southern states seceeded to protect the institution of slavery, and therefore the confederate flag represents nothing more than states willing to fight to protect slavery.

stop with your romanticism of the south.

Your logic is flawed beyond belief and the facts certainly are not on your side. You can call me whatever name you wish as it will not change the course of history one iota, nor will you ever be correct. When North Carolina drafted their Ordinance of Secession, Slavery was not even considered an issue. The same applies to Four other states, including mighty Virginia.

If this is the best of the California Public School system, where I presume you learned such incorrect drivel, I am not impressed one bit and they have failed you and you have failed yourself.

Afterall, California has moved to teach "Gay History" now in Schools which is the most absurd thing I have ever heard in my life. As if anyone did anything in History because they were motivated by the cock. Roll Eyes

Perhaps you can be the first in the History books there, my dear TDongz.

During his first inaugural speech, given on March 4, 1861, President Abraham Lincoln stated that he approved of a Constitutional amendment which would guarantee permanent slavery in the United States. The “Great Emancipator” said, "I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. Holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable." This amendment, supported by Lincoln, is shown here.

This act was passed on March 2, 1861 (The same day the Morrill Tariff was passed ) by both houses of Congress with a 66% vote. This was after the first seven states seceded from the Union, forming the Confederate States of America.

It is interesting that we are talking about the Federal Government, and not the Confederate Government, passing an amendment to the Constitution guaranteeing permanent slavery. If this amendment had been ratified by ¾ of the states, the federal government would have been prevented from abolishing slavery in any state! Again, that is was the Northern Congress, and not the Southern Congress that passed this amendment – with President Lincoln’s approval, is to me amazingly hypocritical.

Moreover, this indicates that slavery was not the issue that caused the Civil War. Clearly the North approved of slavery, and was willing to try enacting a Constitutional amendment to preserve slavery. If the Confederate states wanted to ensure the protection of slavery, then all they would have had to do is return to the Union and ratify this amendment. Something the South did not do. The South did not ratify the Northern Congressionally passed Permanent Slavery Act.

There are many who believe that Lincoln’s support of the Permanent Slavery Act was nothing more than a political maneuver to manipulate the Southern states into returning to the Union, and thus being subject to the new 40% tax imposed on them by the Morrill Tariff. With the South importing and exporting as much as 80% of the nations goods, they would have paid an equal amount of the nation’s import taxes. All from an area which made up only 33% of the nations population. The South complained that the tax was unfair and burdensome to its population, and they were right, especially when one considers that the revenue from the tax would have been spent on Northern interests and not in the South.

The South also questioned Lincoln’s right to serve as President, as he was elected with only 39% of the popular vote. A question that has plagued numerous presidential election since then. In addition, in his inaugural speech Lincoln stated that he would not invade the South, except to collect taxes and possess tax collection stations (such as Fort Sumter). He stated, “The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the government, and to collect the duties and imposts [import taxes]; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere.” I am confident that the South, especially South Carolina clearly remembered the broken promise of President Buchanan to not take over Fort Sumter. A promise made only a few months before Lincoln took office, and broken almost immediately.

The South’s concern was that Lincoln would invade the South, abolish State sovereignty, and establish a centralist federal government, all powerful, and impose higher taxes and reduce personal freedoms. Similar to the current situation in America today.

Decentralization of Federal Power to each state under a loose Confederacy is the very crux of Secession. Perhaps you should read the Confederate Constitution, the same one that states that each State has the power to Permanently BAN SLAVERY if they wish. The United States Constitution never went that far. Why would the Confederacy include that IN THEIR CONSTITUTION if they weren`t eventually planning to follow suit and end the practice? Surely they would have left that entire part out if they so dearly wanted to protect slavery as you wrongly assert.

The other ignorant thing you claim is that all States explicitly state they want to protect Slavery. This is immediately PROVEN FALSE as nowhere in the Secession Ordinance of North Carolina is this even remotely stated.

TBombz, it would really help if you actually knew your history and it is clear you don`t. Please educate yourself.

On April 15, Lincoln called for 75,000 troops to “put down the rebellion.” Governor Ellis responded: “You can get no troops from North Carolina.”When word arrived of Lincoln’s summons, Zebulon Vance, with arms upraised, was pleading for the preservation of the Union: “When my hand came down from that impassioned gesticulation,” he said, “it fell slowly and sadly by the side of a secessionist.”Ellis called a special session of the legislature for May 1 and ordered seizure of all federal property. The Assembly voted to have a delegate election on May 13 to an unrestricted convention to meet in Raleigh on May 20. The campaign that followed was characterized more by resignation than enthusiasm, as evidenced by former Unionists’ and secessionists’ speeches disparaging aggression. When the convention met, delegates debated whether to secede, as some Unionists suggested, on the basis of “the right of revolution.” Radical secessionists, however, favored repealing the state’s ratification of the U.S. Constitution as the most appropriate means of leaving the Union.

North Carolinians seceded reluctantly. Jonathan Worth (1802-1869) stated publicly: “Lincoln had made us a unit to resist until we repel our invaders or die.”

The Tar Heel State, which only acted after Lincoln called for troops, became a bulwark of the Confederate defense, providing more men and supplies to the CSA and suffering more casualties than any other Southern state. In the end, most Tar Heels seceded in the name of self-defense.

TrueAdonis what are you trying to achieve with this ranting, the blacks will still hate you deep down inside no matter how much you try to convince them that life in the South was better for them than life in the North or back home in Africa. They hate the glory of the white race and nothing you can say or do will ever get rid of their jelousy. They are our rivals in a constant struggle for control of the earth, in this struggle the true purpose for every living organism's existance can be found.